This confirms what anarchists have been saying all along. We have been lied to on an unprecedented scale by our (un)elected governments to further the state and capitalist interests (US imperialism). The obvious question is why did they not plant some WMD? Perhaps because they knew that they would not be held accountable?
Unsurprisingly, the pro-war people are seeking to avert the possibility of admitting they were wrong, that the Bush Junta invaded Iraq for other (more obvious) reasons (like oil or geopolitical dominance of the Middle East). The first line of defence is that "everyone" believed Saddam had WMD. As Bush himself put it, "I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction, or like many many here in the United States, many around the world, the United Nations, thought he had weapons of mass destruction."
Except the people who did not (and took to the streets in their millions to protest against a blatantly imperialist war). Except such states as France and Germany who argued that the UN weapons inspectors be given more time to finish their job. Or the UN itself, of course, which steadfastly refused to rubberstamp Bush's warmongering (much to his annoyance at the time). And, of course, even if "everyone" did think so, only the US and UK actually went to war over it and only they stood in front of the world presenting evidence that was about as accurate as randomly poking at a map of Iraq blindfolded and shouting WMD types out.
Moreover, the problem with the "everyone believed it" line is that it was only Bush who started a war because he wanted to. And he had additional information from the UN and the IAEA which made it increasingly clear that Iraq was either significantly less armed, or unarmed with WMD, even as he was getting ready for war (which explains his rush). Yet it will be pointed out by the pro-war people that Saddam had WMD in the 1980s. So because of events 20 years ago (when Saddam created and used WMD, with Western approval and support!), we should forgive Bush and Blair their "mistakes." Yet if anyone else justified their actions based on 20 year-old information, they would be treated like the idiot they surely are. Hardly an excuse.
And what of the Bush Junta? The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, was asked numerous questions on the issue, questions of embarrassment, credibility and explanation. How did he answer? By avoiding answering most questions directly and mentioning September 11 nine times! He topped it all off with this:
"The reality is that the United States of America was attacked on September 11, 2001, and some 3,000 innocent civilians lost their lives . . . The reality is that Saddam Hussein's regime . . . was a unique threat, and the President recognizes that September 11th changed the equation for how we confront the threats that we face. And this President is committed to acting to make the world a better place, make the world a safer place, and make America more secure."
So because a group of terrorists with no links to Iraq killed 3,000 people, the US has the right to kill at least 4 times (more likely, over 30 times). So to make the world a safer place, you start a war. So to make the world a better place, you bomb the fuck out of a third-world country and occupy it. To make America more secure, you over-stretch its armed forces and make it even more hated across the world. But don't worry, just use September 11th and the memories of those murdered innocent civilians to justify killing even more innocent civilians. Evil fuckers.
McClellan did let the cat out of the bag by saying (like Blair) that "based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people." So if we knew that Saddam had no WMD, they would have invaded anyway? That is nice to know. But that does explode the myth that Iraq was invaded because of the threat of its WMD.
But, the pro-war people will argue, Saddam Hussein, his family and his cronies can no longer maim, torture, defile, or rule the people of Iraq. True (although that did not stop the US and UK backing him during the 1980s). The problem is that the US and its cronies have taken his place. As predicted by those who recognise the simple fact that state's lie and are utterly immoral in both ends and means.